I'm going to make a solid point here... you can pay off in-debt w/o paying off karma. Yes if you want to COMPLETELY eliminate the quality then you do that. But the amount owed and the quality aren't linked.

Even if the player does pay it off the nuyen, he still has the quality... by definition whomever he owes has the power to collect (or make the runners life absolutely miserable). There's nothing wrong w/ having said source be a problem in the future, they're probably more than willing to sell his information in the future (or sell their ritual link sample to some pissed off mage). Basically they're a people who know enough about the character and should be willing to make a fast buck off him. Even enough to blackmail him into doing things he wouldn't rather do grata. The link isn't broken til the karma is paid... until then even if the money is paid they can still extract a price.


I once made a decker/rigger character w/ maxed out in-debt... and his life was miserable... between SOTA lifestyle costs (which I FULLY agree with), replacement drone costs (even stealing drones, you need to bloody arm them... white knights let alone ammo aren't cheap!), etc. He could barely afford an actual low lifestyle while everyone else was living high on the hog. Some of the above was used against him, w/ the creditor selling his information to the highest bidder to make extra money on him, even after the debt was paid down a little. (the original loan was for a cyberarm after it got amputated after a smuggling run gone bad... which left him badly short on cash)


Same goes for prejudiced... if the character is setup like that, then it's not a drawback. I have a dwarf zoroastrian mage who can easily make the higher DC check to avoid it. He doesn't, he's convinced that all orks are agents of Kahriman (the evil side of Zoroastrian... sorta like Sauron's pawns in Tolkien). He roleplays it as such, and even worked to screw other players orc contacts and not taken contacts when they've come up as orcs. When critical healing has come up... he's taken tons of drain to heal the non-orcs while leaving the orc for the first aid to barely patch. The other players joke about him pulling a beer hall putsch.


I'm not saying the OP's cases aren't cause for concern. A drawback is only a drawback if it's played as such. But I think the above illustrates good uses of those negative qualities.

I would say that a good background is NEVER Cheesy... if the players do not want to take extra negative qualities, then good for them, that is their choice; and players who are invested in their characters that DO want to have more in-depth backgrounds should never be punished...

As for the Prejudice... have you never come across someone who is prejuduce to that small of a degree... they are rarely outrspoken, but they take almost every opportunity to make life difficult for those that they are prejudiced against, most times in very subtle ways... I knew several of these types of people in the military... and they would argue till they were blue in the face that they Were NOT being prejudiced, but their actions always spoke louder than their words ever did...

Keep the Faith

That test is only to successfully back down from a confrontation with a member of the hated group. I would still apply the -2 penalty for social skills to their interactions with a member of the hated group.

I am rather easygoing about flaws, but I do agree that a negative quality should have some quantifiable disadvantage, or it isn't really a flaw. It doesn't have to be much, but it should still be something.

Look them in the eye and tell them - 'Is this a 5BP bonus with no game mechanic disadvantage? Because if there's not, I'm going to have to get creative and find a way to make you earn those BP. Whatever I come up with is going to be at least as painful as Weak Immune System, Gremlins, or Astral Beacon. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm just telling you the way it is.'



Just to add my two nuyen, Day Job can really flesh out a character if done properly. My Rigger owns an autoshop, and without at least 20 hours a week handing the manager stuff people are not going to get paid. I took a Custom Lifestyle to indicate that I had a shabby apartment installed in the shop, and took Home Ground to indicate that I'm well equipped and good at working from the shop. I still wind up paying a grip of cash for lifestyle to account for the resources and security of the shop, but it makes a pretty good synergy in my mind.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/question.gif) ..another no game mechanic disadvantage flaw (for mages/shamans/adepts) is seemingly almost
"automatic take" :sensitive system 15 bp... there is also thin line between restraining min-maxing
and "handing out" preferred characters to players by GM..

That's true for any Prejudice of that level - and, honestly, mistrusting Technomancers is a game penalty, as he will simply prefer to work with hackers, ignoring the absurd power of TMs.

Personally, that's less "BP for free" than "Prejudice - Homosexuals, Closet" or "Prejudice - Orks, Closet".

Noone told you yet that you can spoof whole lifestyles for free? Or parts of them... spoofing entertainment really is a no-brainer.

This is true...
Our Technomancer habitually spoofs his Full High Lifestyle... nothing like getting it for free...

Keep the Faith

And those with the Alias Paragon are not even allowed to pay for Lifestyle. Given that they get +2 dice on Spoof Tests, however...

Yep... Our technomancer subscribes to Alias...
go figure...

Keep the Faith

The threshhold 0 on that flaw simply means they have to have at least 1 success. A failed, glitched or critically glitched roll still matters in those situations. If he rolls and fails, he doesn't back down, but doesn't escalate either. If he succeeds with a glitch, then he backs down with a badly timed remark (which could of course re-escalate things again). A critical glitch, he likely mouths off and decks the guy or somesuch. The point is, he still *has* to make the roll, which means there is always a chance things go badly. Don't let him buy successes there, as it'll always be a "stressful situation" as he's confronting that which he hates.

No, that would be Threshold 1.

So only Glitches are relevant.

Crud, you're right. Stupid me.

Did they change that... IIRC from the perception rules... that if something has a threshhold of 0 to notice it... you still need a hit to notice it. Just that that is 1 net hit now on the perception test detail chart. If it has a threhhold of 0... you noticed it but don't get any details.

Yes, More Hits generates more information...
But then again, I would almost go with threshold 0 equates to no roll... Minimal effect for minimal effort

Unless if you're in combat or a similar situation... in which case you still need to roll perception to avoid the 'tunnel vision' problem and generate one hit. (think I'm paraphrasing Synner from a long ago thread on that one).

This shows up elsewhere as well... threshhold of 0 just means the first hit counts as a net hit, it doesn't mean a test isn't required (or circumstances may dictate a test is required).

Makes sense, I could see it going either way actually, but I can get on board with that...

Keep the Faith

But if that interpretation is correct, then a threshold of 0 is exactly the same as a threshold of 1, because you only need 1 hit to succeed when the threshold is 1. I think Rotbart's interpretation (only Glitches are relevant) makes more sense.

There is no Threshold 0 in the Perception rules.

And yes, the use of thresholds in the Perception rules is FUBAR - especially since those don't apply to opposed tests, or are overdefined when it comes to silenced gunfire or concealability.

I just force my characters to have some cyberware installed before they can take that flaw. Otherwise, how would they know?

Pre-operative diagnosis.

And, contrary to popular belief, it is quite a disadvantage for awakened not to get some implants.

I agree that the player should have the choice of paying it off with Karma or getting a new Negative Quantity.

These flaws help define the character and tell the GM what type of problems the player is expecting the character to encounter and over come.

If a character gets rid of an addiction he may pick up a compulsion to take its place.

The point is that as characters grow their negative quantities are going to change.

You're very clever. Now sit down a second and listen to what he's saying.

The issue is that a mage who does not want cyberware of any kind gets 15 points free, and some GMs (myself included) think that's exploiting the rules in a way they weren't intended. You get the points for having a flaw, but know it's never going to disadvantage you; it would be like getting 5 points back for not speaking Aramaic or Sumerian. It's up to the DM if he wants to allow this kind of exploit in his game or not.

The house rule that he's suggesting strikes me as a pretty good optional balance mechanism with a good explanation for why it works that way. In fact, your idea that they got a pre-operative diagnosis means they wanted cyberware at some point; if the character was a purist who would never get cyberware, why would he be in pre-op in the first place?

The way it works is this: If you want those 15 points under the house rule, you have to already be suffering some kind of ill effect (essence loss) or you simply haven't earned those points.

Not quite, it's more like, for him it is more difficult to learn those languages than for everyone else.

While it is unlikely to have undergone the diagnosis, it is possible that the character evolves and revises his principles or simply decides that cyberware is a necessary evil to survive and/or get the job done. In that case he is at a disadvantage compared to a mage without the flaw. The only thing that is different from other flaws is that the player decides when and if it comes up. That is, I guess, what irks some GMs.

But even if the character never has ware installed, it is a real disadvantage, because any installment has a much bigger impact on him. How about you rename the flaw to Holistic Purist or something like that? Would the flaw then still be "points for free". What about the pacifist flaw? Does the character have to kill, and feel bad for it, to get the points?

Not my cup of tea.

A mage that doesn't want cyberware of any kind would get those 15 points in return for him paying double essense should he choose to change his mind. Just like any other Negative Quality, if the player is smart about it, he can get ahead; some people term it being cheesy, I just see it as both practical and pragmatic.

I've got this mage concept I've been toying around with...

Scorched [10]
Sensitive Neural Structure [10]
Sensitive System [15]

And this is all perfectly valid even though I've got no cyberware installed, because if I ever decided to give up magic in the future and turn decker, I'd be in a really rough spot when it came time to get those implants...

-----

Some people think this is perfectly valid, and by the rules it is. Some of us think that, without a strong explanation via backstory, this is an excessive exploitation of the rules. We're in a thread that has 'Problem Players' in the title, so I assumed we were looking for rational ways to mitigate abuse of oversights in the rulebook. Instead, it looks like we're trying to find reasons to enable this behavior.

I guess all I can say is, to each their own. That's why each group has their own set of house rules.